You see, Jonathan Papelbon is not a doctor. He (nor I) has no idea what a “transient subluxation event in his right shoulder” means. Sure, he cares, but he doesn’t care to know the details. Ahh, yes, but Papelbon does appreciate what “no tear” means. And that is why Tom Reilly’s tax rollback position works best.
Yes, yes, I can hear the collective “huh?” out there in BMGville, but here is how it works.
You see, most voters – like Papelbon – are not experts, wonks, political junkies, or anything resembling the commentors who frequent BMG. They are intelligent, sophisticated people with a limited amount of time to devote to evaluating our candidates and their respective tax positions because they are busy living their lives. Forget nuance, they want the bottom line. For Papelbon, that bottom line was “no tear.” For voters, that bottom line is “5.0% now.”
For months, I have watched David struggle to make Deval Patrick’s tax rollback position politically salvageable. Most recently, it was an attempted link to school user fees. Before that, David suggested a one-time property tax relief proposal, modeled on a plan in Montana. Why does David feel the need to continuously propose new ways for Deval Patrick to address the income tax issues? Well, I don’t purport to speak for David, but I am guessing that it is because he is a Patrick supporter who intelligently recognizes that this issue is politically potent and poses a big, big problem for Deval Patrick. All one needs to do is look at the comments to his school user fees diary to realize that it is an exercise in making lemonade out of lemons. Seriously, is that the convoluted discussion that we want to carry forward to November? And that, by the way, was a discussion among Democrats (gary’s fine contributions excepted). Bottom line: given the Governor’s role in setting local property tax rates (i.e. no role whatsoever), the link between maintaining the current income tax rate and property tax relief is tenuous at best, no matter how your slice it.
Chris Gabrieli’ income tax commercial concludes with the candidate holding up his tax rollback plan. From the viewer’s vantage point, the plan is apparently so large, it is actually bound! (Did anybody consider that the best visual for a supposedly “common sense,” i.e. simple, plan may be no visual at all? Just a thought.) Again, with Gabrieli’s plan, we are delving back into the realm of nuance: taxpayers will receive a rollback. . .IF tax revenues grow. . .BEYOND the rate of inflation. . . and THEN 40% of that money would go towards a gradual rollback. . .MAYBE. . .IF everything else happens.
And then you have Tom Reilly: 5.0% now.
Personally, I think voters think a lot like Jonathan Papelbon: Bottom line, what are you telling me, doc?
And before you accuse me of underestimating or insulting the intelligence of the average voter, I will adamantly declare that I have done so such thing. Unlike many of the commentors on BMG, I happen to believe that the voters have arrived at their continued support for the income tax rollback for very smart and very thoughtful reasons of their own.
So thank you, Jonathan Papelbon – for anchoring the Red Sox bullpen and for putting the tax issue in proper perspective. You made reading the sports page the perfect two-fer!
No matter who wins the primary, the message from the state GOP is going to be that the Democrat plans to take your money and spend it on gays, illegal aliens, dope fiends, etc.
<
p>
I just don’t see how Reilly wins political advantage by saying ‘cut taxes now’. It’s a policy that even Mitt Romney thought was irresponsible when he last pushed for a drop in tax rates. I haven’t talked to a single person who thinks that this is going to be accomplished, no matter who ends up in the governor’s office.
<
p>
If people don’t believe him, will it matter?
Voters will appreciate that Tom Reilly is at least trying. Isn’t that better than saying, Hey, tough cookies, folks?
<
p>
Plus, I believe Mitt Romney’s push to roll the income back in two years had more to do with Legislative opposition than concern that it was irresponsible. It’s called strategy.
<
p>
Personally, I think that a pro-rollback Democrat has the best chance of delivering on the income tax issue because it removes the Legislature’s favorite argument: hey, the voters are sending us mixed messages by electing a pro-rollback Republican and a Democratic Legislature. In this case, the voters will be saying, We want the rollback AND Democratic values, not one or the other.
Personally, I think Gabrieli has the best message on taxes — we’re not ready, here’s how we get ready. That said, I hope Patrick steals that plan after he wins the primary đŸ˜‰
<
p>
As far as trying goes. People are so cynical about politicians and the Democratic brand is so damaged on taxes that I’m not even sure that independents will even think Reilly is going to try. Healey, at least, we can be assured will try. She will not be successful, but if trying is what counts, she’s a sure bet.
<
p>
I don’t mean to slam Reilly, by the way. I’m just wondering if all this worry about the right political strategy on taxes will matter after Healey dumps $11 million in an ad campaign telling everyone how the Dem is going to raise them anyway. People seem to be nervous that this will only happen if Patrick wins the primary. I don’t think that’s the case. I think they’ve got a wants to raise your taxes ad ready to air on Sept 20th, no matter what.
I agree: that is Healey’s argument regardless of her opponent. The question is, which position is best to weather the two storms: Healey’s ad campaign and voter cynicism with Democrats on fiscal issues?
<
p>
With respect to Healey, it’s a no-brainer. It’s the position that is indistinguishable from her own. (Reilly to Healey: 5.0% is 5.0%, Kerry.) But more importantly, IMHO, Reilly’s is the only position that will repair the Democratic “damage on taxes” that you so accurately identify. It builds trust.
The only way to build trust is to follow through. We can’t build trust on taxes between now and November. It’s way too late for that.
Following through is key, but voter’s have a right to know what you intend to follow through on.